Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AFilm, music, performing artsIndividualDecided 2012Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

Aug082012_02B2203

AwardsNot metExhibitionsNot metMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedJudgingClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

Motion picture or television industry professional petitioner claimed published material and display criteria under EB-1A. AAO upheld director's denial, finding petitioner failed to meet the plain language requirements of the published material criterion and did not satisfy the threshold of three qualifying criteria types. Appeal dismissed.

Official PDF

Official PDF ↗

Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.

No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.

What was missing

  • Awards · Director discussed and rejected; petitioner abandoned this issue on appeal
  • Exhibitions · Director rejected; petitioner initially claimed published material, then sought reconsideration under exhibitions
  • Membership · Director discussed and rejected; petitioner abandoned this issue on appeal
  • Published material · AAO reviewed and found petitioner failed to meet all three evidentiary requirements of criterion
  • Final merits · Petitioner failed to meet at least three types of qualifying evidence; lacks sustained acclaim for extraordinary ability

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
AwardsNot metDirector discussed and rejected; petitioner abandoned this issue on appeal
ExhibitionsNot metDirector rejected; petitioner initially claimed published material, then sought reconsideration under exhibitions
MembershipNot metDirector discussed and rejected; petitioner abandoned this issue on appeal
Published materialNot metAAO reviewed and found petitioner failed to meet all three evidentiary requirements of criterion
Commercial successClaimed, not analyzedPetitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence for this criterion
High salaryClaimed, not analyzedPetitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence for this criterion
JudgingClaimed, not analyzedClaimed on appeal but AAO did not substantively analyze this criterion
Leading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedClaimed on appeal but not substantively analyzed in this decision
Original contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPetitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence for this criterion
Scholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedPetitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence for this criterion
Final meritsNot metPetitioner failed to meet at least three types of qualifying evidence; lacks sustained acclaim for extraordinary ability

A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.